Thanks, Zac.
As the voting on DAOverse continues, I just wanted to add a few personal thoughts.
First, I think this process of discussing the proposal in the Forum has been super successful. Patrick and Shady have responded to every question thatâs been posed to them, and theyâve responded thoughtfully and calmly, even when the questions were at times on the rough side.
Second, up to this point, foundation-hosted validators have not voted on any proposal. That said, delegators to those validators have voted. The thinking behind this was that we wanted the Foundation to remain as neutral as possible. We can discuss this further in the Forum.
Third, with regard to the DAOverse proposal, I wanted to share my personal views. When I step back and assess a start-up proposal, I divide my analysis into two broad categories: one âsoftâ and one âhardâ. On the âsoftâ side is overall âhow do I feel?â about the project and the team. On this side, Iâm 100% behind this project. One couldnât ask for a more committed, determined and passionate team. Moreover, they bring a great deal of talent and experience in their respective fields. However, I believe, on the âhardâ side, there are some gaps that Iâve alluded to previously and in off-line communications with the team. I think youâd be hard pressed to find AAA games that donât have among their C-suite positions a CTO and a CFO. I thought it was telling in the Whitepaper that in Patrickâs bio he calls out an earlier start-up that he participated in that ultimately failed because of over-reliance on a CTO who I think just walked away from the project. Itâs not an uncommon story in tech start-ups â and thus, thereâs a very high failure rate. My sense still is that in this type of venture, a CTO who is a trusted member of the core team, with shared values, commitment, passion and vision is critical, not to mention one that brings solid blockchain development experience. We have two core team members in the company that built games in their previous startup life. Theyâre super impressed by DAOVerse, but commented that AAA games need very strong technical backing - designers and engineers need to go back and forth endlessly to perfect the game. With that in mind, AAA game teams need a solid tech team that has ongoing feedback from the core. Iâve never seen it work when everything is outsourced. Likewise, someone who brings finance expertise is, I believe, essential. How are the investments going to be managed? How is compensation of team members going to be structured? How are investors going to be rewarded? What are the tokenomics/economics of proposed NFTs and tokens? I also believe $FX holders (and maybe $PUNDIX holders too) will want to know if DAOVerseâs DAO token will be airdropped to them, and if so, the details. What are the specific strategies for monetization and sustainability and how will they be implemented? Of course everything has its exceptions and, true, there are mobile games that have raised millions in the hype of raise-first-build-later.
This then leads back to my earliest comment on the proposal suggesting that the âaskâ be made in tranches. I appreciate the teamâs response to this, but from my perspective, tranches provide time and motivation for the team to fill in the gaps. Tranches â and the milestones attached to them - also provide some leverage for the investors to help with course-corrections (markets and circumstances change quickly) and provide additional needed assistance that was unforeseen at the beginning. A reference to MakerDAO and UniSwap will see a similar approach where things are built in tranches, and payments made in tranches too. Itâs true that $1M USD for a $10M - $20M project is just 5% to 10%, but I believe things could be refined further. Moreover, Alchemist posted an encouraging message that the 823k will be used to focus on finishing the first products rather than building the whole world at once. So, maybe the first products can be broken down into tranches.
Again, these are just my personal views. I think itâs a great project and a great opportunity for Function X. But in all honesty, I think it needs some tweaking in order to better ensure its chances for success. I want to emphasize that Iâm not saying that the current proposal will fail. It might very well pass. Nor am I saying that in the event that the first proposal fails, the second, after tweaking, will pass. I am merely conveying a message that I believe can convince more to vote YES. I DID!
Finally, this process also makes it clear to me that the Foundation needs to improve in terms of giving clearer guidance and guidelines with regard to proposals as well as greater transparency with regard to governance. I also believe some adjustments are called for to the quorum percentage as well as the proposal fee. These will be forthcoming.
, we appreciate it alot.
.
these stuff makes me fired up even more haha 
Concerning airdropsâŚ
yes there will be an early supporters airdrop and benefit program for all blindbox NFT holders AND all adresses who voted for us in the Proposal if its successful